Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-28-2006, 1:10 AM
Cato's Avatar
Cato Cato is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alhambra
Posts: 5,636
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default State AW bans illegal

Some thoughts...

These past few weeks I've been wondering what it would take to get SB23 taken off the books. I have come to the realization that the voters would never overturn SB23. However, what if on the federal level all statewide bans were deemed illegal? I really think the NRA should get on this.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-28-2006, 1:12 AM
blkA4alb's Avatar
blkA4alb blkA4alb is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East bay area
Posts: 3,559
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato
Some thoughts...

These past few weeks I've been wondering what it would take to get SB23 taken off the books. I have come to the realization that the voters would never overturn SB23. However, what if on the federal level all statewide bans were deemed illegal? I really think the NRA should get on this.
I don't see that happening so much as I see SB23 getting thrown out for being to confusing and ambiguous. More thoughts later...
__________________
Please, calm down.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-28-2006, 5:37 AM
GJJ GJJ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 423
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I wish we had something like some sort of protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That would be cool. Then, we could get rid of:

AWB bans
waiting periods
tests
one gun a month laws
cosmetic bans

Yep. If the founders of the constitution would have only thought ahead...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-28-2006, 10:31 AM
Charliegone's Avatar
Charliegone Charliegone is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,038
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJ
I wish we had something like some sort of protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That would be cool. Then, we could get rid of:

AWB bans
waiting periods
tests
one gun a month laws
cosmetic bans

Yep. If the founders of the constitution would have only thought ahead...
Well, they assumed no one in their right mind would try to do such a thing....unfortunately we have those "not in the right mind" that do in this state.
__________________


I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
-BWiese
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-28-2006, 10:58 AM
TannerBoyl's Avatar
TannerBoyl TannerBoyl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 185
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Since our lawmakers have determined that the 2nd Amendment doesn't pertain to the individual, but rather for the state government , I believe we're pretty much SOL.

Our only shot at getting SB23 removed would either be to get the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution. The movement early this year to get the RTKBA in the California Constitution fell short. Hopefully, we will have learned from past mistakes the next time around.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:15 AM
jnojr's Avatar
jnojr jnojr is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 8,053
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TannerBoyl
Our only shot at getting SB23 removed would either be to get the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution. The movement early this year to get the RTKBA in the California Constitution fell short. Hopefully, we will have learned from past mistakes the next time around.
There are too many supposedly pro-gun people who are actually opposed to this. Don't ask me why... but no real, organized group (NRA, CRPA, GOC, etc.) will get behind it, and nobody is willing to form and support the organization required to make it happen. CA RKBA is pretty much a dead issue without something at the Federal level overturning the unConstitutional restrictions in place here.
__________________


San Diego FFLs | San Diego ranges
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson
** I have my San Diego County CCW... you can, too!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:26 AM
chiefcrash's Avatar
chiefcrash chiefcrash is offline
Internet Dictator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not-So-Freemont, PRK
Posts: 3,401
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJ
I wish we had something like some sort of protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. That would be cool. Then, we could get rid of:

AWB bans
waiting periods
tests
one gun a month laws
cosmetic bans

Yep. If the founders of the constitution would have only thought ahead...
i'm sure someone will shoot me for saying this, but i don't care a whole lot about waiting periods. It doesn't really screw my life up to have to wait 10 days to pick up my gun.

I wish i could piss on the guy who wrote the AW bans though. The way i see it, if it doesn't restrict what i can have, i'm ok. i can't think of any situation where i *NEED* that shotgun or rifle RIGHT NOW. and if i was in a situation where i needed it immediately, i'm probably in a state of mind where i shouldn't get one...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
we can not nor should not dismiss or discount my theory that in the dark of night you molest sea anemones by candlelight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
Show me on this 1st Amendment bobble-head doll where the mods touched you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click Boom View Post
It is clear from this thread that citadel grad was the gunman, and Oswald his patsy.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:37 AM
GJJ GJJ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 423
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Chiefcrash, I won't kill this thread by flaming you. I will be polite. But, any infringement is illegal. Even if an infringement doesn't bother you personally, you should be against it for the reason that one infringement legitimizes other infringements. Where does it stop? Also, need is not the yardstick that we use to exercise our RIGHTS. You don't need a TV, Car, or a piano. In a free country, wanting one is good enough. The "need" fallacy is straight from communism. "To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".

Last edited by GJJ; 08-28-2006 at 11:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:46 AM
chiefcrash's Avatar
chiefcrash chiefcrash is offline
Internet Dictator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not-So-Freemont, PRK
Posts: 3,401
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJ
Chiefcrash, I won't kill this thread by flaming you. I will be polite. But, any infringement is illegal. Even if an infringement doesn't bother you personally, you should be against it for the reason that one infringement legitimizes other infringements. Where does it stop? Also, need is not the yardstick that we use to exercise our RIGHTS. You don't need a TV, Car, or a piano. In a free country, wanting one is good enough. The "need" fallicy is straight from communism. "To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".
but is a waiting period really an infringment? a 5-10 day wait doesn't stop you from buying anything and everything you want. and (at the risk of sounding like Brady) it does do good. what are the negative side effects of a 5 day wait?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
we can not nor should not dismiss or discount my theory that in the dark of night you molest sea anemones by candlelight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
Show me on this 1st Amendment bobble-head doll where the mods touched you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click Boom View Post
It is clear from this thread that citadel grad was the gunman, and Oswald his patsy.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:50 AM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,434
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefcrash
but is a waiting period really an infringment? a 5-10 day wait doesn't stop you from buying anything and everything you want. and (at the risk of sounding like Brady) it does do good. what are the negative side effects of a 5 day wait?
Are you kidding me? Yes it is an infringement. People are fine with buying something and taking it home a few minutes later, the world hasn't gone to crap in the other states of America with just the instant background check.

...I really can't believe that you would tolerate a wait when it does nothing but put us at an inconveniance. If you think people won't kill people after a "5-10 day cooling period", then they'll use something they don't have to wait for! Gun? 10 days? I'll just stab someone with a knife then! Theres no waiting period for that, its simpler to use, and it can be more effective in certain cases! Besides, the people who intend on using a gun for a crime don't have to deal with it themselves because they BUY THEIR GUNS ILLEGALY. That means no waiting period OR backgorund check. It screws /US/ over. And for the criminals stupid enough to try to buy a gun legally, if they're willing to do things the "legal way", then they're probably patient enough to wait anyways.
__________________

"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."

Last edited by The Soup Nazi; 08-28-2006 at 11:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-28-2006, 12:01 PM
MikeK MikeK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefcrash
I wish i could piss on the guy who wrote the AW bans though.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-28-2006, 12:02 PM
MikeK MikeK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi
Are you kidding me? Yes it is an infringement. People are fine with buying something and taking it home a few minutes later, the world hasn't gone to crap in the other states of America with just the instant background check.

...I really can't believe that you would tolerate a wait when it does nothing but put us at an inconveniance. If you think people won't kill people after a "5-10 day cooling period", then they'll use something they don't have to wait for! Gun? 10 days? I'll just stab someone with a knife then! Theres no waiting period for that, its simpler to use, and it can be more effective in certain cases! Besides, the people who intend on using a gun for a crime don't have to deal with it themselves because they BUY THEIR GUNS ILLEGALY. That means no waiting period OR backgorund check. It screws /US/ over. And for the criminals stupid enough to try to buy a gun legally, if they're willing to do things the "legal way", then they're probably patient enough to wait anyways.
Sorry. I don't have a problem with it either.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-28-2006, 12:02 PM
50BMGBOB 50BMGBOB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,677
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I have a lot of guns already. A waiting period does NOTHING. If they can make you wait, then what s stopping them from making it longer? 30 days? A year? 10 years? If the waiting period is to run a background check then 10 minites later you should be able to take your gun and leave! people that aren't stable will do something with or without a gun. And the time it takes to go buy one doesn't make you more stable!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-28-2006, 12:06 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,989
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr.
... too many supposedly pro-gun people who are actually opposed to this. Don't ask me why... but no real, organized group (NRA, CRPA, GOC, etc.) will get behind it, and nobody is willing to form and support the organization required to make it happen. CA RKBA is pretty much a dead issue without something at the Federal level overturning the unConstitutional restrictions in place here.
I won't ask you why, because you're wrong. NRA would love to get behind an RKBA if they had the money.

Major ballot propositions are big biz in CA. They require TV, radio and newspaper time, regional on-the-ground coordinators, spokesmen in various areas, and lawyers, plus herds of paid signature takers. I believe some of the Indian gaming stuff was $150+ million dollars. Probably even more with tobacco-related stuff or redistricting. Things like the fight against Prop 75 were probably funded with pension money from other friendly unions' coffers.

Senior NRA leadership told me that even moderate support of an RKBA proposition, to do it full justice and have a smidgen of a chance to fight, would cost at least $100+ Million (don't remember the exact figure) - with maximal volunteer support from every CA NRA member on top of that. And there'd be a lot of risk - the NRA is not gonna spend a decent fraction of its endowment or yearly intake for one battle that doesn't offer a sure bet. They've had some very smart nationally-recognized political analysts come in (didn't know this) when RKBA was being talked about and looked at its chances.

Some dudes gathering 7 signatures a day at a couple of gunstores and surplus shops, along with some friendly Costcos, doesn't cut this.

Chances for approval increase if Katrina-like events or Rodney Riots occurred and people suddenly valued their RKBA. Coordinating/synchronizing a ballot offensive with a crisis is well-nigh impossible though.

The danger of underfunded half-hearted attempts is that there's risk it taints the status or the overall concept - very much like a house that stays on the market too long: a smart realtor pulls it off market for awhile before it becomes 'tainted goods' and then re-lists it, perhaps with some changes in the deal, staging, etc.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-28-2006, 12:52 PM
Stanze's Avatar
Stanze Stanze is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,210
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

My whole argument is that if a state can pass a law violating the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment etc. And, the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Then, why not for the 2nd amendment???
__________________
Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin


Quote:
"Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack." -Stanze
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-28-2006, 1:03 PM
chiefcrash's Avatar
chiefcrash chiefcrash is offline
Internet Dictator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not-So-Freemont, PRK
Posts: 3,401
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

i guess my position on waiting periods is slightly different. allow me to devulge a bit more:

A friend of mine went nuts on night. He went suicidal on me. From what he told me, he wanted to kill himself, but was at a delema. He didn't want something slow or painful like knives/hanging/jumping/etc would be. He didn't have any pills to take either. He went to a gun store (never bought a gun before), and was turned away because he needed to wait 10 days before he could have it. He took it as a sign and got some help. He's still alive to this day...

As for me, a 10 day wait has never stopped me from buying any gun i wanted. Never even entered into the equation. I was never like "hmm, i really want that rifle, but i gotta wait 10 days..." I just don't see the huge deal. Sure, i'd rather be able to walk out with my rifle the same day, but if it's worth my $500, it's worth the wait. Makes finally gettin' to shoot it even sweeter.

I can understand the position some of you take: allow no legislation between me and my gun. That's fine. I encourage it even. And when it comes to any piece of legislation that says "you can't have that" or "you need a permit for that", i'm with you. But i can afford to wait 10 days...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
we can not nor should not dismiss or discount my theory that in the dark of night you molest sea anemones by candlelight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
Show me on this 1st Amendment bobble-head doll where the mods touched you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click Boom View Post
It is clear from this thread that citadel grad was the gunman, and Oswald his patsy.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-28-2006, 1:12 PM
ohsmily ohsmily is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: El Dorado Hills (Sac area)
Posts: 8,000
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanze
My whole argument is that if a state can pass a law violating the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment etc. And, the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Then, why not for the 2nd amendment???
Because the Second Amendment, as current jurisprudence stands, does not apply to the states. Eventually, the Supreme Court will accept a case to settle this issue.
__________________
Expert firearms attorney: http://www.ajrlaw.net

Check out http://www.blitzkriegtactical.com. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-28-2006, 2:05 PM
ketec_owner's Avatar
ketec_owner ketec_owner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 302
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I still think there is some basis for challenge. Recommended reading on this topic is the california supreme court ruling on the challenges to SB23 and roberti-roos as well as the supreme court rulings. You'll find that some of the actual reasons the court ruled as they did. My opinion on the subject is that it is still challengable - just not on the previous argument basis. Lawsuits before this have argued equal protection - but the court ruled that equal protection applies to people and not a class of firearms.
__________________
WECSOG - "SEMPER DREMELATUS"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-28-2006, 2:20 PM
Charliegone's Avatar
Charliegone Charliegone is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,038
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefcrash
i guess my position on waiting periods is slightly different. allow me to devulge a bit more:

A friend of mine went nuts on night. He went suicidal on me. From what he told me, he wanted to kill himself, but was at a delema. He didn't want something slow or painful like knives/hanging/jumping/etc would be. He didn't have any pills to take either. He went to a gun store (never bought a gun before), and was turned away because he needed to wait 10 days before he could have it. He took it as a sign and got some help. He's still alive to this day...

As for me, a 10 day wait has never stopped me from buying any gun i wanted. Never even entered into the equation. I was never like "hmm, i really want that rifle, but i gotta wait 10 days..." I just don't see the huge deal. Sure, i'd rather be able to walk out with my rifle the same day, but if it's worth my $500, it's worth the wait. Makes finally gettin' to shoot it even sweeter.

I can understand the position some of you take: allow no legislation between me and my gun. That's fine. I encourage it even. And when it comes to any piece of legislation that says "you can't have that" or "you need a permit for that", i'm with you. But i can afford to wait 10 days...
You know. This just got me thinking. How about a wait period for the first gun you buy but after that no waiting. Since you'd already have one, there is really no logical explanation to have a waiting period for the second one if you are suicidal or pissed off. I know it might not sit well with some of you, but..hey every little bit counts right?
__________________


I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
-BWiese
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-28-2006, 2:31 PM
Cato's Avatar
Cato Cato is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alhambra
Posts: 5,636
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 40 day wait

Quote:
Originally Posted by 50BMGBOB
I have a lot of guns already. A waiting period does NOTHING. If they can make you wait, then what s stopping them from making it longer? 30 days? A year? 10 years? If the waiting period is to run a background check then 10 minites later you should be able to take your gun and leave! people that aren't stable will do something with or without a gun. And the time it takes to go buy one doesn't make you more stable!
____________________________________________
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the state of Mass, you have to wait 40 days! In Hawaii you have to go to the police station to get a permit to buy. That could take a couple weeks!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-28-2006, 2:50 PM
Bling Bling 2.0 Bling Bling 2.0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 687
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I don't mind the wait one bit if it keeps a gun out of the hands of a "crazy". Everytime some nutcase shoots up a school it makes me as a gun owner look bad. As a responsible and safe gun owner I don't want anyone near a gun who doesn't understand it or has a very liberal view of reality. Background checks are completely legit for me. As others have stated, my beef are with the gun grabbers. Who are they to say that I'm irresponsible with my firearms or that society can't trust me with a 11 round magazine? It's pitiful!

Of course there needs to be serious criteria and standards for background checks. They should never be used to exclude any religious (yes, even islamic), ethnic, or political groups (other than non citizens).
__________________
"You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends on the couch"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:05 PM
grammaton76's Avatar
grammaton76 grammaton76 is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,537
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Problem is, if we HAVE a waiting period, whenever a crazy does shoot up somewhere, the anti's can scream that it wasn't effective and we need to escalate the bans further.

If there wasn't a waiting period, then they'll just scream that we need to introduce one.
__________________
Primary author of gunwiki.net - 'like' it on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gunwiki/242578512591 to see whenever new content gets added!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:10 PM
GJJ GJJ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 423
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

In summary, the dialog in this thread is a big part of why our gun rights have been trashed in California. Even many gunowners don't understand the nature of freedom and our rights under the constitution.

If many gunowners can be that clueless, the rest of society will be even worse.

Since the state is god, how about waiting periods and tests for voting, having children, and getting married?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:23 PM
MikeK MikeK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJ
If many gunowners can be that clueless, the rest of society will be even worse.
Bull.

You listen to all of the crap being spewed by the right-wing republicans about how we need to give up some of our personal freedoms in defference to National Safety (Read: The Patriot Act) and yet the idea of giving up a few of our gun rights in the name of Personal Safety is wrong.

You know, the same people fighting for gun rights are the same people saying that your phone records should be open to the government and other such BS.

Irony FTW.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:27 PM
sac7000 sac7000 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: (((five-3-zero)))
Posts: 369
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well it just so happens that I enjoy the 10 day wait, gives me time to cool off when my old lady drinks all my beer even though I've got loaded guns scattered all over doublewide. I'm telling ya that 10 day wait has saved her butt numerous times.

I also particularly enjoy paying the $25 dros fees every friggin time I buy a new gun even if it's several times a month. I'm sure the state needs my money to help offset the cost of printing anti-gun comic books for schools. We don't need no chillins running loose in the street with assault weapons.

Ya, I'm a happy camper when it comes to guns and living in California. Who wouldn't be?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:30 PM
chiefcrash's Avatar
chiefcrash chiefcrash is offline
Internet Dictator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not-So-Freemont, PRK
Posts: 3,401
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJ
In summary, the dialog in this thread is a big part of why our gun rights have been trashed in California. Even many gunowners don't understand the nature of freedom and our rights under the constitution.
the problem is, NO ONE understands our rights under the constitution. The constitution did not spell it out to where it says citizens can have any type of weapon that's available. It's vague. This forces us to interpret what was meant. My interpretation will be different than yours. Yours will be different from Sarah Brady's. Brady's will be different from Michael Moore's. Moore's is different than Charlton Heston's. Heston's will be different than a 5 year old child's. It's like trying to interpret the Bible...

Personally, in *my* ideal world: a guy goes through a through background check. He takes a test to make sure he's aware of the current laws (don't shoot at people, don't shoot at buildings, don't threaten people with it, don't shoot up into the air on the 4th of july, what have you). Then he has to wait 5-10 days ON PURCHASING THE FIRST GUN. Past that, give him a freakin' grenade launcher if he wants it. if/when he screws up and does something stupid with his weapons, cut his nuts off...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
we can not nor should not dismiss or discount my theory that in the dark of night you molest sea anemones by candlelight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
Show me on this 1st Amendment bobble-head doll where the mods touched you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click Boom View Post
It is clear from this thread that citadel grad was the gunman, and Oswald his patsy.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:32 PM
GJJ GJJ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 423
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Mike, I don't know what your point is? Gun control for the mirage of safety is wrong. Giving up your freedom in other areas is wrong too.

I think you and I are in complete agreement.

Many, many Republicans sound like fascists calling for more restrictions against our rights in the name of patriotism. The so called right is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Ironically, if Hillary would have passed the patriot act, campaign finance reform and the futile Iraq war - the same "right wingers" would have screamed bloody murder.

But, GWB is a republican. So, it is all okay.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:36 PM
blacklisted blacklisted is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
Bull.

You listen to all of the crap being spewed by the right-wing republicans about how we need to give up some of our personal freedoms in defference to National Safety (Read: The Patriot Act) and yet the idea of giving up a few of our gun rights in the name of Personal Safety is wrong.

You know, the same people fighting for gun rights are the same people saying that your phone records should be open to the government and other such BS.

Irony FTW.
Please don't speak for others.

Are you saying

"right-wing republicans" - sacrificing privacy is good, sacrificing gun rights is bad

You - sacrificing privacy is bad, sacrificing some gun rights is good

I don't see the difference.

Infringement on gun rights is just as bad as infringement on privacy. Also, not all of us are "right-wing republicans".

Me - sacrificing privacy is terrible, sacrificing gun rights is terrible

Last edited by blacklisted; 08-28-2006 at 3:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:45 PM
chiefcrash's Avatar
chiefcrash chiefcrash is offline
Internet Dictator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Not-So-Freemont, PRK
Posts: 3,401
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

this is the point in the heated debate where i shall suggest we all take a break and have a nice piece of pie....

mmmm, pie....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
we can not nor should not dismiss or discount my theory that in the dark of night you molest sea anemones by candlelight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKM View Post
Show me on this 1st Amendment bobble-head doll where the mods touched you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click Boom View Post
It is clear from this thread that citadel grad was the gunman, and Oswald his patsy.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:48 PM
mikehaas's Avatar
mikehaas mikehaas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Waiting periods are an infringment because a person may need a gun to protect themselves in short order. Any situation that legally justifies a restraining order is an example. Any nut that decides he/she will make you the focus of his deranged attention is a reason. In fighting waiting period laws, NRA used testimony from individuals that got in bad with someone, borrowed or bought a gun and that tool was used to save their life within days.

Remember the LA Riots? NRA pubicized the lines of folks trying to buy guns and especially one chap who was heard yelling above the crowd - "THIS IS AMERICA, I DON'T HAVE TO WAIT!"

I doubt waiting periods have ever saved a life, not a single one, or done anything but further endanger people already in trouble and hassle law-abiding citizens that would never effect violence on another (save a self-defense situation).

I personally know one gun dealer that didn't want to sell to a certain individual. Bunch of reasons, probably not the least of which was the guy had once crashed into a series of cars on a street out of pure rage. During the waiting period, he contacted LEO's with his misgivings and was told straight out "If you aren't a psychiatrist, give the guy his gun," inferring the dealer was a jerk for bothering them.

Within months, that gun buyer went on a rampage, took over a bar at gunpoint, then proceeded to rape and kill several people.

CA lawmakers constantly pile "feel good" BS like waiting periods and 1 gun/month on law-abiding gun-owners, but fail to address crime in any significant way. They are political cowards and we pay the price.

Mike

Last edited by mikehaas; 08-28-2006 at 3:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:55 PM
MikeK MikeK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklisted
Please don't speak for others.

Are you saying

"right-wing republicans" - sacrificing privacy is good, sacrificing gun rights is bad

You - sacrificing privacy is bad, sacrificing some gun rights is good

I don't see the difference.

Infringement on gun rights is just as bad as infringement on privacy. Also, not all of us are "right-wing republicans".

Me - sacrificing privacy is terrible, sacrificing gun rights is terrible
You know, I typed out a big response and then figured it wasn't worth it.

If you couldn't get the fact that right-wing is as bad as left-wing, only for different agendas from the original post, then it's not worth explaining.

Move along. Nothing to see.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:57 PM
MikeK MikeK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJ
Mike, I don't know what your point is? Gun control for the mirage of safety is wrong. Giving up your freedom in other areas is wrong too.

I think you and I are in complete agreement.

Many, many Republicans sound like fascists calling for more restrictions against our rights in the name of patriotism. The so called right is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Ironically, if Hillary would have passed the patriot act, campaign finance reform and the futile Iraq war - the same "right wingers" would have screamed bloody murder.

But, GWB is a republican. So, it is all okay.
Agreed. This is my point. Both sides are part of the problem, but because one supports "gun rights" then it's okay that they crap on the rest of the constitution.

Go figure.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:58 PM
MikeK MikeK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehaas
Waiting periods are an infringment because a person may need a gun to protect themselves in short order.
Be prepared.

-Boy Scout Manual.

If they can figure it out, then adults can purchase a firearm well in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-28-2006, 3:58 PM
Charliegone's Avatar
Charliegone Charliegone is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,038
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Frankly, I think none of us would like to have waiting period, but since we live California and considering all the negative crap we would get from a rather bias media..we just won't get it. So we can't think "its my way or the highway" because we won't get nothing done...the methods of anti-gunners has been little by little, and it works! Its time we did the same.
__________________


I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun.
-BWiese
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-28-2006, 4:05 PM
sac7000 sac7000 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: (((five-3-zero)))
Posts: 369
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefcrash
this is the point in the heated debate where i shall suggest we all take a break and have a nice piece of pie....

mmmm, pie....
I prefer the Powdered Moose myself....
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-28-2006, 5:09 PM
Cato's Avatar
Cato Cato is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alhambra
Posts: 5,636
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default No Gun Laws.

Guns shouldn't have any restrictions on them whatsoever. It's spelled out there in the Bill of Rights. What if we messed with the prohibition of slavery? Allow states to decide? Then once a slave was to be given freedom, make him take a test, wait a period of time, check his background to see if he can handle the freedom. "Nope, looks like you might end up on welfare with half a dozen kids, sorry, back to the cotton field!" That would be just as wrong.

In my perfect America, Big 5 and Target would carry MP5s, G36s, fully auto M16s. It would be cash and carry. Of course we will still have nuts shoot up the place, but that wouldnt be any different than situations like that elderly driver in Santa Monica who ran over like 15 people. If the citizens were better armed, someone would shoot the crazy man before too many people get killed.

I would add to the 2A a prohibition of say weapons of mass destruction. Suitcase nuclear weapons would be far too dangerous in the hands of the average Joe.

Last edited by Cato; 08-28-2006 at 5:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-28-2006, 5:23 PM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,434
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato
I would add to the 2A a prohibition of say weapons of mass destruction. Suitcase nuclear weapons would be far too dangerous in the hands of the average Joe.
I disagree by principle and practicality. Average joe can have nuke if he wants. The thing is that first, the resources are so expensive that the average joe can't have a nuke. The second thing is that if a person actually has the capability of producing a nuclear weapon, then they A: are not an "average joe", and B: can piss off whatever laws this country might set. If you can build a nuke, you're probably able to subvert the laws as well.
__________________

"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-28-2006, 5:57 PM
M. Sage's Avatar
M. Sage M. Sage is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 19,759
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefcrash
i guess my position on waiting periods is slightly different. allow me to devulge a bit more:

A friend of mine went nuts on night. He went suicidal on me. From what he told me, he wanted to kill himself, but was at a delema. He didn't want something slow or painful like knives/hanging/jumping/etc would be. He didn't have any pills to take either. He went to a gun store (never bought a gun before), and was turned away because he needed to wait 10 days before he could have it. He took it as a sign and got some help. He's still alive to this day...

As for me, a 10 day wait has never stopped me from buying any gun i wanted. Never even entered into the equation. I was never like "hmm, i really want that rifle, but i gotta wait 10 days..." I just don't see the huge deal. Sure, i'd rather be able to walk out with my rifle the same day, but if it's worth my $500, it's worth the wait. Makes finally gettin' to shoot it even sweeter.

I can understand the position some of you take: allow no legislation between me and my gun. That's fine. I encourage it even. And when it comes to any piece of legislation that says "you can't have that" or "you need a permit for that", i'm with you. But i can afford to wait 10 days...
The ten-day wait has discouraged me a couple of times in the past. It's a pain in the ****** to go through.

Would you put up with a waiting period to buy a newspaper or post a message on an online forum or blog? Hell no.

I hate to say it, but waiting periods DO discourage some law abiding people from lawfully buying a firearm. On the flipside, a hypothetical: If someone started stalking my wife and the police were unable/unwilling to do anything about it (not too uncommon...), I would be forced to buy a handgun ILLEGALLY for her to carry ILLEGALLY. Of course, I'd start DROS on a perfectly legal pistol in the meantime, and after the ten days, ditch the ill-gotten one where it wouldn't turn up (leaving the wife still packing unlawfully, but at least not with an illegal firearm).

Ok, so the second illegally is because of our screwed CCW situation, but the first directly relates to the moronic waiting period.

I don't mean to sound insensitive or anything, but if your friend had been committed to killing him/herself, they'd be dead. Someone wants it bad enough, it's going to happen - waiting periods and suicide barriers won't stop it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
"We're here to take your land for your safety"

"My Safety?" *click* "There, that was my safety"
http://www.huntfishadventures.com/images/nra.gifNRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-28-2006, 6:03 PM
WokMaster1's Avatar
WokMaster1 WokMaster1 is offline
Part time Emperor
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,442
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefcrash
the problem is, NO ONE understands our rights under the constitution. The constitution did not spell it out to where it says citizens can have any type of weapon that's available. It's vague. This forces us to interpret what was meant. My interpretation will be different than yours. Yours will be different from Sarah Brady's. Brady's will be different from Michael Moore's. Moore's is different than Charlton Heston's. Heston's will be different than a 5 year old child's. It's like trying to interpret the Bible...

Personally, in *my* ideal world: a guy goes through a through background check. He takes a test to make sure he's aware of the current laws (don't shoot at people, don't shoot at buildings, don't threaten people with it, don't shoot up into the air on the 4th of july, what have you). Then he has to wait 5-10 days ON PURCHASING THE FIRST GUN. Past that, give him a freakin' grenade launcher if he wants it. if/when he screws up and does something stupid with his weapons, cut his nuts off...

Amen on that. Won't it make sense if California has the toughest gun laws in the country. You can have anything you can afford after you passed a battery of tests. If you F* up, (off with your left nut) & a few years in State pen as Bubba's assistant. I can live with that!

Now the tests would include gun laws, tactical & safety & psychological. Maybe I'm just dreaming.
__________________
"Good friends, good food & good wine. Anything else is just a waste of soy sauce.":)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-28-2006, 6:10 PM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,270
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK
Agreed. This is my point. Both sides are part of the problem, but because one supports "gun rights" then it's okay that they crap on the rest of the constitution.

Go figure.
I dont know of one single American effected by the rights you say Republican right wingers ahve taken away but I do see a whole board filled with people who have been effected by left wingnuts.

Your liberal media talking points are for your other board.
__________________

HMM-161 Westpac 1994
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:55 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.